• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Geforce GTX1180/2080 Speculation thread

melmac

melmac

melmac

Soldato
Joined
19 Dec 2010
Posts
12,030
D.P. said:
Thecuda cores aren't the same, they will have some improvements, but they don't need that many improvements to see the performance difference since the number of cores increased. Similarly the bump in memory bandwidth will help as well.

Don't forget, this is basically 2 (smaller) generations ahead of Pascal, but stuck on a similar process.
Click to expand...

You are really reaching here with your 2 generations ahead of Pascal.
 

Silent_Scone

Silent_Scone

Silent_Scone

Soldato
Joined
5 Sep 2011
Posts
12,812
Location
Surrey
Panos said:
Hardware Async compute and DX12/Vulkan are something AMD is trying to push for a long time now. But it cannot afford to splash millions per game like Nvidia does.
Which the later is doing so, to keep the games at DX11 and add gimpworks. Or at least force DX11 support.

Look at some recent ports. All AMD optimizations existing on consoles were stripped from the same titles when came to PC.
That results that you need a pretty beefy hardware to achieve the same visual quality and performance with consoles.
Yet AMD sponsored titles (FC5 for example) work perfectly regardless the hardware either Nvidia or AMD.

Thought there are titles like SW Battlefront 2 who have kept a lot of those optimizations. The Division 1 also. (DX12 on Vega 64 works better than on my old GTX1080Ti Xtreme, DX11 different story)
Have you see how the Battlefront 2 performs on Nvidia cards with DX12 or HDR activated? Very appalling even for the damn Titan Xp, which last year considered over the 1080Ti Xtreme.
A card that costs atm 3 times more than Vega 64, and is fricking slower at 4K HDR + gsync!!!!!
Yet on other games at same settings is barely less than a handful fps faster. And that on a £3400 setup (27" 4k HDR gsync monitor + TXp) compared to a £900 setup (35" 4K HDR Freesync monitor + V64 Red devil)

True not all together at same review, and need to connect the dots from 2 different reviews, but for heaven sake -_-

People should have grab pitchforks against Nvidia long time ago, not blaming AMD for not competing.
Click to expand...

And therein lies the rub. What good is OpenCL to anyone if nobody wants to implement it.
 
Last edited:

Panos

Panos

Panos

Soldato
Joined
22 Nov 2009
Posts
13,252
Location
Under the hot sun.
FoxEye said:
So basically nV have done exactly the same as AMD did, despite having billions more R&D money. Which is to make an AI/Pro card, and then attempt to re-purpose that same card/architecture for gaming.

Rather than making a true gaming card.
Click to expand...

At least AMD did a descent job and you can run the Vega with all it's belts and whistles. If yuo try to run the Turing cards with all their belts and whistles, you will get 24fps at 1080p :p
 

Shinzra

Shinzra

Shinzra

Associate
Joined
29 Nov 2014
Posts
58
From looking at least the base specs of the 1080TI vs the 2080, the 1080ti will probably perform better or at least on par in a non ray game. I think 1080ti owners especially recent ones such as my self will be quite content to wait for the next release.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom